|
OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
In terms of security?
In terms of accessibility? In terms of gaming compatibility? In terms of stability? In terms of Anything? Which is better for SE4? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Which is better? Windows XP Home Edition or Windows 2000 Professional? [ November 29, 2003, 00:23: Message edited by: TerranC ] |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
In general, 2000 > XP. There are a few ways in which XP is better, but most of those are eye candy. This is because XP is basically 2000 v2.0. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
XP Home is GARBAGE and you should stay away from it. Go with 2000 Pro over XP Home any day. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Quote:
Beyond that, I'd have to tell people to move to XP (one or the other). M$ has dropped support on 2000 and according to the other I'Net forums I inhabit, most people say XP is more stable than 2000. And it usually takes some real convincing for people to let go of their 2000. I still use it at work and it's darn stable...just about as good as my XP at home. I use XP and I use a few unusual pieces of software not to mention the various 3D apps I use and I have about 1 OS crash (in other words, BSOD or OS failure to the point of needing a reboot) about once every 3 months. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
To add another note ongaming compatibility, I can honestly tell you right away, W2000 has a harder time running (some) games than XP does. I gave our kids W2000 so I could give each their own logon. Besides running into games that required admin login to run, I ran into game that just flat didn't run under W2000. Having said that, I can't say those programs would run any better under XP since I haven't spent the money to upgrade to the newer OS.
[ November 27, 2003, 04:25: Message edited by: Slynky ] |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
I've heard from several people having problems with XP trying to run some older games.
I prefer Win98SE for myself, because I like my OS to be simple and do as little unwanted nonsense as possible. However, if forced to, I'd use Win2KPro sooner than I'd use XP. XP is an emoticon for cringing in pain and sticking one's tongue out. It's designed for the computer illiterate, which is about the only thing it does relatively better than Win2K. Since I already know how to use Win9x, WinXP's new design is mostly just insulting and aggravating. WinXP has the evil activation scheme, too. PvK |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Well, PvK, you failed to talk about the fact that M$ has dropped support for W2000. So, if a vulnerability arises, you have been left out. There will be no new updates for that OS.
XP is basically the kernal of W2000 improved. If you walk into Best Buy or Media Play (popular places in the US), and take a look at the OS's supported, you'll find backward compatibility for more games for 95 and 98 than W2000. W2000 was published as a platform for buisneses. Accordingly, a lot of gaming companies didn't bother spending time to test for compatibility. That didn't mean they wouldn't run but that they didn't "promise" it would. A lot of games run on W2000 that don't list it on the box. But some don't. They just don't. This is also true of XP, since it was (kind of) based on W2000. But, you'll probably have more success installing an older game on XP than W2000. Now, it may be that I went through some sort of activation scheme but I don't recall it. I never had to call or register. I installed and it ran. Now, IF it did some "stuff" behind my back, I don't really care. My Adobe PS "checks in" regularly and so does a few of my other software packages. I installed an additional HD on my system and I never had to call M$ and my OS never stopped working (like a lot of people feared). I've flashed my BIOS and still no problem. Of course, EVERY bit of software on the 4 PCs on my home network have been paid for. That goes for multiple copies of NAV, M$ Frontpage, and a few others. As an IT professional, I advise people who approach me all the time. I don't think I'd be steering anyone wrong by recommending XP. NOt to mention a few other added features the average "village idiot" might find useful that XP has that W2000 does not. Besides all that, you can't even legally purchase W2000 any longer. IF you do find a copy legitimately, you will be lucky. Just try to order a PC with it and see what you get. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Quote:
Quote:
No comment about the amount of M$ software you've paid for. However... Front Page ... laugh! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif PvK [ November 27, 2003, 05:32: Message edited by: PvK ] |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Ummm... my school's CS department is still offering Win2k Pro to students. They just updated the group license about a month ago. So it's still being sold.
And as for no more support for the OS, I'm pretty sure that only means major updates. They will have to release security patches and such for some time to come (and in fact I just downloaded a security patch for 2kPro Last week that was dated around Nov 15). I could care less if they don't release any major updates, and don't blame them for not doing so, since they're already approaching their third generation OS removed from 2kPro. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
I have to be honest, win2k has served me quite well over the years. The only issues I have had with it at ones that deal with my configuration and my AMD/MSI mother board CPU combinations.
Windows XP has also worked well for me. Be sure to turn off both the XP and Win2k instant messaging program, or you will get spammed regularly with window pop ups. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
if you are wanting compatibility (both HW and SW) get 98SE
if your carefull you can get it fairly stable. I dont know much about 2000 but others have told me that XP is a little more stable. I have XP pro on this and its prety good, I still havent looked at tweeking it yet, but I am impressed at the stability, even if I do get some kind of lockup it will usualy sort itself out given half a chance. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Avoid the problem of stablity all together and just buy a Mac. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
PvK, what changes in XP user interface were you talking about? For me, XP looks almost like 98 after a few tweaks (removing the horrible basic interface, disabling Messenger and so on). Of course, with the basic interface, I can understand your problems. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
As for old games, it mostly depends on the game in my experience. While Daggerfall runs like a charm on XP (yes, I even managed to play Daggerfall for several hours without a crash on XP), I have quite a few games that refuse to launch when they don't basically crash the whole system. But I would believe the same can be said of 2000 as well. If given the choice, I would gladly go back to 98SE as soon as possible, as this OS is much simpler and less cumbersome. (And my computer is a bit slow to run XP with ease as well) However, I don't have the Second Edition of 98 and cannot find it anywhere, so I am basically stuck with XP since 98 (first edition) is lacking connection sharing. Either that, or I couldn't make it work, your choice. And I don't recall having much issues with stability back in those days when I used 98 either. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Connection sharing? Why not just grab an inexpensive router (or hub if your ISP gives you multiple IPs) and be done with it?
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Terran C... WinXP.
The code is updated from win2k. Both are good OS's And both will run what you need. But Win2k is getting up there in the years and will be unsupported soon enough. Where Xp still has a few years left in it.... Security... Their both flawed. Its MS. And its open concept. Accessiblity. Both are good. Except that XP does not have the power user level. Its either all or nothing.. Game Compatibility. Possibly win 2k... But xp will play most games Stability. Their the same Anything. XP makes a nice little gaming machine. But win 2k does as well... At least with win 2k you can install something on your computer hardware side without making the call. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
I got this question a lot back when I was doing onsite computer support for home and small business Users. Here's my typical answer.
If you have Win2k there is no real need to go to XP (termination of support had not yet occurred). If you have 98SE, and your machine has sufficient power (we recommended 750+ MHz, 256 Mb RAM minimum) then XP where you want to go. If you have ME then you need to get something, anything, else on there right away. What a dog. I always disabled the automatic update. If you disable this, nothing will ever be installed without your specifically choosing to install it. If the user was interested in performance I would disable all the shiny-happy crap in XP, it ended up looking like 2k. Activation was trivial. You either connect into them over the internet, use one of their dial-up numbers, or even just made a phone call and read strings of letters or numbers to the rep, who then gave your letters or numbers back (I don't remember the specifics of their codes). XP Home is fine, as long as you do not need to log into a domain. If I recall correctly, the only differences between Home and Pro was that Pro could log into a domain, could be accessed remotely with that keen built-in feature, and could support file-level sharing. I think that was about it. I hope Thermo hits this thread. He always has informative things to say about Microsoft's products. My XP Pro box does not crash. Ever. My Win98SE file server is in desperate need of yet another reload (I think this time I'm going to put that super-GUI Linux distro, Xandros, on it), my old Win98, 98SE, and 95 machines crashed all the time, and ME was purged from the house only a month, or so, after it was introduced. Heck, even the Win2k 'guest machine' is having problems, though that is more likely related to what the 'guests' have been doing to it than inherent vulnerabilities in the OS. [edit: that should be file-level permissions, not file-level sharing, and I should add that Home and PRo use the same kernel: other than a few features, they are the same OS] [ November 27, 2003, 13:13: Message edited by: Loser ] |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Quote:
Quote:
[ November 27, 2003, 14:41: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ November 27, 2003, 14:45: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Win XP Home is running fine for me. I installed it Last Xmas and haven't had any crashes since. My bro had Win 2000 Pro and his comp locked up and crashed very often. It generally ran like a turtle on valium and he had to re-install 2000 every other month. He now runs XP Home and has virtually no more problems.
I find that way too many people blame the OS because their systems are not running well. I think the Hardware is a bigger culprit where compatability is concerned. I did have some problems when I upgraded my computer but quickly found that way too many devices were sharing the same IRQ's I moved the various cards (sound and network) to alternate slots and they no longer share any IRQ's. Think of it people, you have one OS, but there are 1,000,000's of different hardware configurations. Nuf said. The only thing I find apauling about Win XP is that when it came out I paid $139 cdn for it. the other day I walked into a store and saw that XP Home now sells for $249 cdn and XP Pro sells for $399 cdn. I feel sory for people who have to pay that kind of price. I also see no justification for the OS to have gone up so much in price. Just my 2 cents. Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Quote:
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue42/tag/6.html |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
I have XP and I never had to register it. I have changed my GFX card and it never asked my to register XP either.
And if it did, I could EASILY find a way to "circumvent" the registration. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Did XP perhaps activated itself "for" you? I'd be interested to hear if it complains if you try installing the same copy on another machine.
This is a typical strategem for gradual changing of rules and laws, though. They introduce new ones but try to make it as painless as possible, so that people will accept them, and to test the waters. Since they're being nice about it, people don't complain. Eventually they get more and more serious about it, until they eventually gain acceptance for paying monthly subscriptions per computer, per user, whatever they can get away with, for every piece of M$ software. They can take their time at it, since they have a monopoly and enough income from interest on cash reserves that they can make a profit without selling anything at this point. I don't disdain XP activation because I think it would cause me great inconvenience. I disdain it because I don't like the proposed contract "you can install it on one machine only". PvK |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Quote:
I expect I could reduce more of the annoyances by devoting more time to learning how to kill them, hanging out on Annoyances.org more, etc. However, I'd rather be gaming than dealing with new innovations from M$. PvK [ November 27, 2003, 19:43: Message edited by: PvK ] |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Windows XP has to be activated here and complains heavily if you don't. (It almost threatens you to destroy your computer if you persist in your efforts not to register. We all know how these Messages look like, don't we? *Thinks of the red alert when you try to install a non-standard driver*)
I wonder why you didn't have to. Was your connection Online during the installation? It could have happened while you weren't watching over XP. Otherwise I have to admit I am puzzled. Or Microsoft sent special Versions in France. *Smirks* PvK, it did complain for me when I tried to install it on one computer while it was registered on another. I was asked to phone Microsoft if it was a technical problem due to extensive hardware changes. It worked fine when XP wasn't registered on the first computer though. Yes, I was somewhat bored to install Windows on two computers just to run tests. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
I see what you mean about XP, quite a lengthy list if I may say so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I managed to get rid of quite a few of these, but not of all. Not yet. (The Search function is still not really working, and I couldn't bring the DOS back to life, as it should still be there, lurking in deep waters)
I didn't run into some of the other issues you mentioned, so I gather I should knock on wood. (Especially the part with the My folders, probably because I regard them as a bane for humanity) But I have met some other "options that do want to help you, but which turn to be really harassing in the end" you haven't spoke about, so I guess we are even. (Such as my keyboard going to and fro from Azerty to Qwerty, some accessibility wizards opened by pressing five times the caps key for example, a save option for hard drives which destroys Mozilla settings files, and so on. (Strange that only Mozilla files would be affected out of 40 gigas of data, isn't it?)) I should stop the list here, as someone else will likely add a few other items to it. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ November 27, 2003, 20:40: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
No question - use 2000. XP only if you are an expert and know every option and how to turn them off (some of them are carefully mis-phrased and look like turned off when actually on). Or if you don't mind to be spied upon more than any trojan virus does, forced unwanted "updates" on you, and suffer random disabling of non-M$ programms.
Do not forget you cannot even turn off many spyware functions - even if they are made to appear to be off or non-working (like that "unregistered" XP JayBDay wrote about that has phoned home for sure). You have to install XP antispy to be at least a bit safe. Otherwise, M$ can reconfigure any of your settings as they like. I refuse to service any XP computer without antispy on it, and without expertly disabled update options. Apart from the overall personal security, such blatant violation of consumer rights should not be supported, IMHO. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
I've have 98SE, W2K & XP on different machines, and Win98 is the most stabilist. I never turn that machine off, just standby, do almost all my work on it, and I haven't had to rebuild it since I first built the computer 5 years ago.
W2K would be my second choice. Once you patch the security holes, it just runs what it is told to run. XP seems better for running games, for the simple fact that you can tell the game to run in different operating system mode. ie. Run this game in Win95 mode. But the first thing I also do, it remove allthe 'user friendly' crap M$ put on it. Make it look like 98, and away you go. Not sure where the information came from about W2K not being supported or sold. Microsoft's "hard drop-dead dates" for Win2000 are:- No non-security hotfixes after 1/1/2004 No paid Online support after 1/1/2005 |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
You have been extremely lucky with Win 98 if you have been running it for 5 years without rebooting it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif If you don't install and uninstall stuff all the time, there is rarely ever a need to reinstall Windows. I only installed 2000 once and used it for nearly 2 years (with the occasional reboot) before going XP.
[ November 28, 2003, 00:30: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
There is a router, but it doesn't seem to be automatically working. Or rather, I cannot make it work correctly to share the connection without using some software. (No wonder given my computer literacy skills which are almost nil) *Grumbles*
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Oops, perhaps I should have said 'rarely' turn it off, instead of never. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
I would like to know how it has managed to "phone home" without an internet connection. Unless all XP machines came with a satellite up link to allow wireless communication with the MS mother ship.
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
What exactly did you install? XP Home? XP Pro? XP Pro Enterprise edition? Some of them don't have the activation IIRC (the ones designed for businesses setting up large networks with lots of PCs...).
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
I will have to ask the friend that I got it from. He works at a large company and I asked him if he could "borrow" an XP disc for me.
I know it is not XP home, it is XP pro or some variant of it. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Then it was probably a copy licensed under an enterprise license... which makes it illegal for you to have installed it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
woopdy-doo.
I don't have a legal piece of software on this system. If I had the money I would definitely pay for it, people do deserve to get payed for their work. But I don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on software. Photo Shop alone costs 599$ I could build a new PC (or two!) for that much. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
The defense "I needed it so I took it, even though I couldn't afford to pay for it" may have some arguable validity when talking about food to feed one's starving family, but I hardly see software as that sort of necessity. By extension, it would be silly of you to buy a new computer, or parts to build one, if you could just steal them instead.
SpaceBadger |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Ah but there is where your argument is flawed.
Stealing would require me to take something, thus depriving the owner of use of the original. If I steal a car the car is gone, the owner no longer has it. But If I download some software, someone who payed for it doesn't loose their ability to use it. I have only made a copy. One more copy exists, at no cost to the maker (admittedly, at no profit either) I could steal a painting, or I could take a picture of the painting. The painting is still there, but I also have use of it with my copy of it. It is wrong, but it is not stealing. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Pffft. So in your view someone who wants to play SEIV and just gets a copy of the CD from a friend has not stolen anything from Aaron Hall or from Shrapnel? Get real.
Hmm, you said there wasn't any legal software on your system - does that include games? Do you think that your "need" for a game outweighs the creator's interest in getting paid for his work? SpaceBadger |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
No, if someone burns a copy or downloads from say, kazaa, they did not steal anything.
They did however commit a crime. But that crime was not theft. Stealing would be if I broke into a store and stole a SEIV disk since the store no longer has the physical disk and can't use it. I'm not defending piracy, but I'm just making sure you know that it isn't "stealing". Yes, it is wrong, but it is not theft. Edit: Most of my games have been purchused legaly because of the CD-Key. [ November 28, 2003, 05:58: Message edited by: JayBdey ] |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
No legal software AND running WinXP? Be careful, very careful. You can do it, but you have to know how to antispy it.
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Yes... it is stealing by any sense of the word. Taking someone's idea for a new movie and marketing it as your own is stealing. Pirating software is stealing. It is not the exact same sort of stealing as stealing bread, but it is still theft nonetheless.
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Why would I need to be careful?
OK, worse case scenario. Big bad MS relay is spying on me. They report that to the software companies. How would they use that evidence in court? Spying on citizens is not exactly legal for a company to do. Hell, even the government has to go through procedures. Imagine the bad publicity MS would get from that. And it's not stealing. Says the courts, it's copyright infringement. If I went to court the charges would be copyright infringement. [ November 28, 2003, 06:03: Message edited by: JayBdey ] |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Your definitions of theft and stealing are not accurate either legally or etymologically. To quote a certain Spaniard: "I do not think that that word means what you think it means." You are free to make up your own definitions for words, but don't expect them to have any meaning to anyone but yourself.
SpaceBadger |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Copyright infringement IS stealing...
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
It's not my definition, it's the US's legal system's definition.
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
Regardless of what technical term is used for the crime commited, software piracy is still theft. Wrongfully taking another's intellectual property is stealing it. Copyright infringement is stealing whatever the item is.
|
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
I guess so. In the same way murder is stealing. I mean, you are taking something from them, their life.
But we don't call it stealing so it isn't. |
Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
No, murder is not stealing in any sense of the word. You do not gain the person's life when you kill him/her.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.